About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
MSNBC 14
MSNBCW 6
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
fitsity still. there's no legislative language. it looks like what could be a pretty big tax increase. the spending cuts i think are highly uncertain. it instructs the various committees of the senate and the house to come up with these spending cuts. we have no assurance that they will do that. we have no idea how they'll do that. then we asked the senate to vote on that. all of which suggests to me there are a number of ways in which this could fall apart. i give these guys all the credit in the world for really struggling and trying to make some progress on a tough issue. there's no assurance that it results in an outcome. if we can't agree on spending cuts now, why should we suppose at the end of this process which after all has been available to us for two years the senate won't even pass a budget, why we think that this will result in real spending cuts is not clear to me. >> the other dynamic here is the mcconnell-reid proposal. that is going to get to the floor at some point. now the idea of being that the gang of six proposal is too late to be scored by cbo to really be put i
leaders are digging in on the big sticking point of taxes ahead of tomorrow's white house summit. chuck todd is nbc's chief white house correspondent and host of "the daily rundown." chuck, we've heard a lot from republicans. today at the bloomberg breakfast it was said that any tax measures had to be revenue positive over the long run that could be ten years out. eventually have to contribute toward deficit reduction. that is not what republican senator john cornyn was saying exactly the opposite what he said on our show yesterday that it has to be revenue neutral. how does the president hope to bridge this devoid? >> reporter: well, you know, they have an interesting tactic here. they believe and frankly behind the scenes so do house republicans believe it will be easier to sell a larger deal that has some things in it that nobody's crazy about on certain sides. whether some trims to entitlements on the democratic side or some of these revenue proposals on the republican side that if it's a large deal, $2.5 trillion to $4 trillion and maybe even $6 trillion in the out years meaning th
to ask the big oil companies to give up one dime not one dime of their $4 billion annual subsidy. they have refused to ask big corporations to give up one dime in their corporate loopholes. what we are negotiating with is a group of people who won't compromise. a group of people who have said we want the middle class to pay more taxes so that big corporations can pay less. we want seniors to lose their medicare so that big oil companies can continue to foost on their subdis. that's what the problem is. >> the case that republicans have taken a hard line on talks, at the same time democrats are taking what sounds like a hard line on entitlements. let me read a statement from leader pelosi that says we continue to oppose benefit cuts in social security and medicare. these pillars should not be used a as piggy bank to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. are democrats not just as guilty of failing to compromise as republicans are in this case? >> no, absolutely not. what we have said and i think most americans would agree with this is the middle class and seniors should not be asked
ahead with a big deal maybe triggered in or staged later? >> i heard what the president said. i don't think business itself is bothered by the debt ceiling deal or no deal. i think what they may be bothered by is the uncertainty surrounding future tax regime that's going to be required to deal with these deficits. however, factoring into the negotiations what maybe somewhat helpful to the president in a slew of numbers that by and large are totally unhelpful is we're seeing the near term effects of cutting back in government spending. it cost jobs. not just in the government sector, but also in knock on private sector jobs as well. >> steve liesman with all the numbers and what that mean. thank you so much. good to see you, steve. republicans using the bad jobs report to scuttle any new taxes in a budget deal. joining me now virginia democratic senator mark warner a key member of the so-called gang of slight, slightly shrunk to five. still hoping senators working for months on ways to reduce the deficit. your quick reaction to the jobs report first and how it will effect the negotia
toward a vote next week. the president says he still wants a big deal. but for the first time he's opening the door on senator mitch mcconnell's fall back plan which is gaining momentum on capitol hill. chuck todd was in the briefing room for the news conference. host of "the daily rundown" and luke russert. there was a movement from the president at least towards considering the mcconnell backup plan. what are the chances he still might get what he really wants which is a bigger deal? >> to me -- in a way put together to try to get through this. what you felt was the press conference was about was trying to frame the post game debate, if you will. you heard this from the speaker. suddenly they're back to distancing themselves from the debt ceiling. let's get to the debt ceiling part. we're running out of time on that. maybe there's still time to negotiate this grand bargain. that's sort of what i heard out of this. the president will sign anything that gets to his desk that seems to get through both houses of congress at this point. and then after that, maybe there's a conversat
? >> what we need to do is the president proposed that we deal with this very big problem in a big way. and that democrats should put all of our sacred cows on the table. we demonstrated that we're willing to put all our sacred cows on the table. the republicans are simply not willing to do anything but sit on their hands and cross their arms like spoiled children, almost. and that's just not responsible. what democrats want to do when it comes to dealing with entitlements is make sure that we don't end medicare as we know it. that we don't cut benefits but we look at medicare and social security in a way that can preserve the long-term solvency of those programs and not propose what the republicans have to end those programs. >> speak of safety nets, the president did say in his interview last night that he could not guarantee that he would continue paying social security benefits if there were a default. this is what michele bachmann had to say about that. >> we were all shocked and appalled that president obama dangeled out in front of the cameras that senior citizens may not get th
'm a little bit of a restaurant of history. and there are a lot of real big things that have been gone in this country by executive order. president truman up until this point my favorite president of all times. integrated the armed services by executive order. couldn't get the congress to do it. there seemed to be little support for it my hometown senator left the democratic party buzz he did it and ran for president as a states rider. but the president did it. it was a bold move and as far as i can tell people like colin powell are very thankful that president truman did what he did. >> in the current case let me ask you about the whip count you were the whip and still a great vote counter are you and steny hoyer and nancy pelosi going to give john boehner an exit strategy with some democrat votes since it's clear he doesn't have enough votes just relying on republicans? >> if he were to come to the floor with a bipartisan bill, i think he would get bipartisan support. right now he's running this on his own within his own caucus. he is not involving nancy pelosi or steny hoyer or you
to comment until you see some specifics. i think that the bottom line is in terms of an overall deal, the big holdup here is the fact that republicans have kept revenues off the table completely, even eric cantor yesterday, people said well, it's a great thing he says maybe he'll do a few of these egregious loopholes in the law, corporate jets and yachts and stuff like this, but even there, he had another loophole put in the law and none of the money that would be -- that comes from closing these loopholes would be used to reduce the deficit. so it's one step forward, two steps back. if republicans are willing to entertain serious revenues, there's a real chance for a big deal. if they're not, there's no chance for a big deal and i can tell you this. democrats are not going to go for something that says we have all these cuts that we'll put in the budget now and maybe we'll get revenues down the road, the ways and means committee or the finance committee will decide those down the road. leader reid issued a statement that i think sums up our view, that there has to be balance between cuts and
the table, the problem is so big we won't bo able to fix it and the politics are such that it's going to be impossible to get everybody around the table to come one a deal. it really is time for everybody to put these lines in the sand aside and start trying to fix the problem, which is what i think is gang of six did this week breathes a lot of new life into this whole discussion of how do we fix this problem in a way to get a lot of people to sign on and by doing it smartly that's going to help tremendously. >> do you think that the market, the rating agencies and others looking at it from the outside will take it seriously if there is some sort of agreement, a handshake whatever you call it between the president and the speaker of the house that has 217 votes and can get through the house, that there's an agreement for things that will be triggered down the road, is that going to be good enough, tax reform down the road? >> there's a lot of risk. people tend not to believe politicians doing hard things later. at the same time we need to lift the debt ceiling. we need to do that rig
we all know the country needs which is the big deal. $4 trillion of deficit reduction to get our debt going down to put america on a stronger fiscal foundation going forward. that's really what's required. i believe it's still achievable. but we've got to change a little bit about how we talk about these things on both sides. >> you said at this point you think the president is right to threat tn veto. what if it's august 1st at midnight and approaching august 2nd, the markets are clamoring, would you still say that a short-term extension and continued talks are not the best option? >> you're a very good reporter. you pick up on nuance, don't you? >> we try. >> i don't want to bargain against my position. so i think it's critically important that the president continue to push for what we all know the country really needs. it's incumbent on both sides, on both sides to come together and do what's right for america. >> chairman conrad thank you very much. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> the big question looming over all of this and the debt talks is what will happen if a deal i
is prepared to shoot at big targets in afghanistan. it's a bad signal about how ready the pakistanis are to confront terror networks in their own country. >> jane harman from the woodrow wilson center, thank you very much. >>> and up next here, the arab uprising and the secret weapon being used to get around governments trying to silence the masses. >>> and still ahead, education nation, the battle over no child left behind in congress. my conversation with arne duncan here in aspen. [ woman ] we take it a day at a time. that's how it is with alzheimer's disease. she needs help from me. and her medication. the exelon patch -- it releases medication continuously for twenty-four hours. she uses one exelon patch daily for the treatment of mild to moderate alzheimer's symptoms. [ female announcer ] it cannot change the course of the disease. hospitalization and rarely death have been reported in patients who wore more than one patch at a time. the most common side effects of exelon patch are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. the likelihood and severity of these side effects may increase as
a picture for us about how a newspaper like news of the world goes about reporting on such a big story? what the level of the editor, deputy editor, senior reporters would be in putting together and overseeing the story? >> i think any big story. forrer the purpose of process most stories start out with the reporter. and that reporter may be being asked by the news editor to go and investigate a story or they may have brought information about a story from their own contacts to the news editor. it is at that stage in a newspaper where the reporter and news editor discuss the voracity of the information, go out and check the allegations, and come back with a more considered view. you can imagine that every newspaper gets a lot of information to the news desk and only percentage very small percentage makes it actually to publication. there are many layers from reporter to assistant news editor to news editor. finally this story will go to the back bench which will be the people that will oversee the stopping of that story and the subwill often talk to the reporter directly with questions and a
to continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subs cities for big oil companies, on tax cuts for the rich and on corporation tax loopholes, they are not interested in balanced budgets. they are interested in one thing and one thin only, making the rich much, much richer and making the middle class much, much poorer. that is why you get delay after delay after delay. that is why as the clock runs out instead of meeting in the middle they are lurching further and further to the extreme right wing. >> congressman, i know that -- we've heard political talking points from both sides. at this stage of emergency the american people want to see some action, the president said there is rough agreement between the two parties and likely the democrats and republicans in the senate are going to have to engage in negotiations with joe biden and others. where do you see this negotiation going? is the white house willing to concede a shorter term debt ceiling extension and deal with the two trenches that have been agreed to? where do you see it coming down? >> with all due respect this is n
, it made taxpayer funded bailouts illegal. so tax payers don't have to foot the bill if a big bank goes under. second, it said to wall street firms, you can't take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis. and third, it put in place the stronger -- the strongest consumer protections in history. and make sure that these protections work so ordinary people were dealt with fairly so they could make informed decisions about their finances. we didn't just change the law. we changed the way the government did business. for years the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. so if you had a problem with the mortgage lender you called one place. if you had a problem with a credit card company, you called somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge with just one job. looking out for regular people in the financial system. this is an idea that i got from elizabeth warren who i first met years ago. back then this
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)